Incidence of and risk factors associated with nedaplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions. Int J Clin Oncol. 2017;22:593-599. [PMID: 28124284 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-017-1091-4]

Hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Although rare, systemic hypersensitivity reactions to nedaplatin chemotherapy arise rapidly and can be life-threatening. The causes are unclear, and multiple potential mechanisms exist. Here, we report a case of systemic hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin and review the literature to establish a recommended protocol.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 62-year-old man was being treated for squamous lung cancer with multiple metastases. On the first day of chemotherapy, 5 minutes after nedaplatin infusion, he developed panic, shortness of breath, and dyspnea with rapid heart rate, reduced oxygen saturation, and elevated blood pressure.

DIAGNOSES

The symptoms indicated that the patient had developed a severe hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin, which could be life-threatening without immediate intervention.

INTERVENTION

Nedaplatin was discontinued, and he was treated with oxygen, ECG monitoring, finger pulse oximeter monitoring, 10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate injected intravenously, 20 mg diphenhydramine hydrochloride injected intramuscularly, and 40 mg methylprednisolone sodium succinate injected intravenously.

OUTCOME

His allergic symptoms resolved, and once his vital signs stabilized, he was given 5 mg oral desloratadine once daily and 10 mg oral ebastine once daily to alleviate the effects of the allergic reaction. Once his vital signs remained stable without any special supportive treatment, he was discharged from the hospital. His chemotherapy regimen was discontinued, with no plan for a follow-up treatment due to the possibility of cross-allergic reactions between platinum-based drugs.

LESSONS

Clinical use of nedaplatin should be monitored and managed intensively for prevention and treatment of hypersensitivity reactions. Care should be taken to control the titration rate during infusion while closely monitoring vital signs. Clinical staff should be prepared to treat allergic symptoms as soon as they appear. The acute phase should involve immediate discontinuation of the drug; intravenous saline infusion for volume expansion; rapid assessment of circulation, airway, respiration, state of consciousness, and skin condition; and administration of oxygen, antihistamines, and epinephrine as appropriate for anaphylaxis. More randomized clinical trials are needed to elucidate appropriate preventative and management strategies to improve patient safety and support their successful completion of clinical treatment programs.

Case Report: Etoposide-nedaplatin induced rhabdomyolysis in a small cell lung cancer patient

Rhabdomyolysis syndrome refers to the breakdown and necrosis of muscle tissue due to various reasons and caused by the release of intracellular contents into the blood stream, which can lead to acute renal failure or even death. In this article, we describe for the first time a case report of severe rhabdomyolysis induced by etoposide-nedaplatin chemotherapy in a small cell lung cancer (SCLC IIIb) patient. The patient developed progressive general muscle pain and weakness after the first cycle of chemotherapy, accompanied by elevated creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin (Mb), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), spartate aminotransferase (AST), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Examination of and inquiry regarding the medical history were used to exclude various factors of rhabdomyolysis caused by trauma, strenuous activities, infections, drugs, hyperthermia, and immunity; the patient was diagnosed with severe rhabdomyolysis induced by chemotherapy. After treatment with intravenous fluids and methylprednisolone, the patient's symptoms were relieved and laboratory results were significantly improved. An unexpected situation arose, in that the lung CT scan showed that the lung mass was significantly smaller than that before chemotherapy; the reason for this is not clear. Rhabdomyolysis induced by anti-cancer drugs, especially chemotherapy drugs, is rarely reported and easily overlooked. Therefore, physicians should be aware of this rare but potentially serious complication when using chemotherapy drugs.

Effect of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy With Nedaplatin vs Cisplatin on the Long-term Outcomes of Survival and Toxic Effects Among Patients With Stage II to IVB Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A 5-Year Follow-up Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) regimen at 2 years was noninferior to cisplatin-based regimen in patients with locoregional, stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and was associated with fewer late adverse events, but longer-term outcomes and toxicity are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 5-year outcomes and late toxicity profile of nedaplatin-based CCRT in patients with locoregional, stage II to IVB NPC.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

This 5-year follow-up secondary analysis of an open-label, noninferiority, multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with nonkeratinizing stage II to IVB NPC between January 16, 2012, and July 16, 2014, with a median follow-up duration of 78 months (IQR, 3-99 months). Data analysis was conducted from November 10, 2020, to July 8, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m2)- or cisplatin (100 mg/m2)-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for 3 cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and locoregional relapse-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 402 eligible participants were enrolled (median [IQR] age, 45 [18-65] years; 302 [75.1%] male). Patients were randomly assigned to receive nedaplatin- or cisplatin-based CCRT (n = 201 for each): 196 patients (97.5%) started nedaplatin-based CCRT and 197 patients (98.0%) started cisplatin-based CCRT. Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a 5-year progression-free survival rate of 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, -6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs 88.8%, P = .63), distant metastasis-free survival (85.9% vs 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse-free survival (92.6% vs 89.6%, P = .17) rates. The cisplatin group had a higher incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects than the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs 21 [10.5%], P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, long-term analysis confirmed that nedaplatin-based CCRT could be regarded as an alternative doublet treatment strategy to cisplatin-based CCRT in stage II to IVB NPC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01540136.

Hematological Toxicities of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapies in Head and Neck Cancers: Comparison Among Cisplatin, Nedaplatin, Lobaplatin, and Nimotuzumab

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard of care for locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC). Nedaplatin, lobaplatin and nimotuzumab have shown anti-cancer effect with less gastrointestinal toxicity and nephrotoxicity. However, the profile of hematological toxicities of these agents in combination with radiotherapy has not been fully illustrated.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected the clinical data of consecutive LAHNC patients treated by cisplatin-, nedaplatin-, lobaplatin-, and nimotuzumab-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Routine blood cell counts were obtained every 4 to 7 days. Hematological toxicities were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 181 eligible LAHNC patients were assigned to nimotuzumab group (n = 34), cisplatin group (n = 52), nedaplatin group (n = 62) or lobaplatin group (n = 33). Among the four groups, nimotuzumab group displayed lightest hematological toxicities, followed by cisplatin group, nedaplatin group, and lobaplatin group. Lobaplatin was more likely to produce grade 3/4 leukopenia compared with cisplatin (48.5% vs 25.0%). Compared with cisplatin, nedaplatin and lobaplatin were more likely to cause grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (nedaplatin 19.4% vs cisplatin 3.8%; lobaplatin 30.3% vs cisplatin 3.8%). Similarly, nimotuzumab group showed highest nadir levels among the four groups, followed by cisplatin, nedaplatin, and lobaplatin group. Moreover, concurrent platinum treatment and induction chemotherapy were risk factors of developing grade 3/4 hematological toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Nimotuzumab-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancers produced the lightest hematological toxicities, followed by cisplatin, nedaplatin, and lobaplatin. Patients should be given specific attention during concurrent chemoradiotherapy, particularly in the presence of previous induction chemotherapy.

Nedaplatin-induced syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) is relatively common in several cancers, such as small cell lung cancer. However, nedaplatin-induced SIADH is rare. We describe a case of SIADH mediated by nedaplatin.

CASE SUMMARY

A 54-year-old female with nasopharyngeal carcinoma was treated with nedaplatin and developed severe hyponatremia due to SIADH. The side effects were successfully treated by fluid restriction and sodium supplementation.

CONCLUSION

This case report highlights the importance of cautiously treating life-threatening hyponatremia in patients treated with nedaplatin.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with nedaplatin versus cisplatin in stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy is currently considered to be the standard treatment regimen for patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but has well known side-effects such as gastrointestinal reactions, nephrotoxicity, and ototoxicity. Nedaplatin was developed to decrease the toxic effects induced by cisplatin, and in this trial we assessed whether a nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimen was non-inferior to a cisplatin-based regimen in patients with locoregional, stage II-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

METHODS

We did an open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial at two centres in China. Patients aged 18-65 years with non-keratinising stage II-IVB (T1-4N1-3 or T3-4N0) nasopharyngeal carcinoma, a Karnofsky score of at least 70, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenously either nedaplatin 100 mg/m² or cisplatin 100 mg/m² on days 1, 22, and 43 for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Randomisation was done manually using a computer-generated random number code and patients were stratified by treatment centre and clinical stage. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 2 years; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference in 2-year progression-free survival between the two groups did not exceed 10%. Analyses were by both intention to treat and per protocol, including all patients who received at least one complete cycle of chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01540136, and is currently in follow-up.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 16, 2012, and July 16, 2014, we randomly assigned 402 patients to nedaplatin-based (n=201) or cisplatin-based (n=201) concurrent chemoradiotherapy. In the intention-to-treat population, 2-year progression-free survival was 89·9% (95% CI 85·8-94·0) in the cisplatin group and 88·0% (83·5-94·5) in the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1·9% (95% CI -4·2 to 8·0; p_{non-inferiority}=0·0048). In the per-protocol analysis (cisplatin group, n=197; nedaplatin group, n=196), 2-year progression-free survival was 89·7% (95% CI 85·4-94·0) in the cisplatin group and 88·7% (84·2-94·5) in the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1·0% (95% CI -5·2 to 7·0; p_{non-inferiority}=0·0020). A significantly higher frequency of grade 3 or 4 vomiting (35 [18%] of 198 in the cisplatin group vs 12 [6%] of 200 in the nedaplatin group, p<0·0001), nausea (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0021), and anorexia (53 [27%] vs 26 [13%], p=0·00070) was observed in the cisplatin group compared with the nedaplatin group. 11 (6%) patients in the nedaplatin group had grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia compared with four (2%) in the cisplatin group (p=0·065). Patients in the cisplatin group had a higher frequency of any grade or grade 3 or 4 late auditory or hearing toxicities than did patients in the nedaplatin group (grade 3 or 4: three [2%] in the nedaplatin group vs 11 [6%] in the cisplatin group, p=0·030). No patients died from treatment-related causes.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy represents an alternative doublet treatment strategy to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with locoregional, advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Further investigations are needed to explore the potential use of this treatment as induction or adjuvant chemotherapy or in combination with other agents.

FUNDING

National Key R&D Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program, Sci-Tech Project Foundation of Guangzhou City, National Key Basic Research Program of China, Special Support Plan of Guangdong Province, Sci-Tech Project Foundation of Guangdong Province, Health & Medical Collaborative Innovation Project of Guangzhou City, National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period, PhD Start-up Fund of Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, Cultivation Foundation for the Junior Teachers in Sun Yat-sen University, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.